What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

It’s not biblical!

JackrabbitSlim said:
That's a very good question. It possibly could be. It's commonly taught that Paul was experiencing a certain sin, often connecting this verse to Romans 7. However, when we look at the Greek, it speaks of a disability. Here is the Greek word for "thorn:"
σκόλοψ skólops, skol'-ops; perhaps from the base of G4628 and G3700; withered at the front, i.e. a point or prickle (figuratively, a bodily annoyance or disability):—thorn.
I remember, several years ago, I searched for a physical description of Paul, while I do not remember the actual source-I believe it was an apocryphal book-it described him as being "deformed", stating he was "bow-legged."

Sidenote: I do not consider the apocrypha as the divinely inspired word of God, I view it as extra-biblical.

***Edited***
I just looked up G4628 and it speaks of "the leg."

σκέλος skélos, skel'-os; apparently from σκέλλω skéllō (to parch; through the idea of leanness); the leg (as lank):—leg.
Click to expand...
Very good.
I'll do some searching myself.
I always knew it was physical and not of sin.
 
JackrabbitSlim said:
It would be interesting to know where your searching leads you.
Click to expand...
It's not leading me anywhere.
I've read a few commentaries and it seems that no scholar knows for sure what it could mean.
If they don't know, and there is such dissention, my attitude is not to think anything of the verse...
I just let it go. Paul was bothered by something, that's all that matters.
There doesn't even seem to be consensus as to whether it's physical or spiritual, but I had always been told it was physical. (In bible studies).
 
wondering said:
Very good.
I'll do some searching myself.
I always knew it was physical and not of sin.
Click to expand...
I am not as sure as you are here. Maybe it's a little of both. Our inability to live a truly righteous life even when we desperately want to could easily become a major thorn for us.
 
Jethro Bodine said:
www.blueletterbible.org

G1626 - ektrōma - Strong's Greek Lexicon (kjv)

G1626 - ἔκτρωμα éktrōma, ek'-tro-mah; from a comparative of and τιτρώσκω titrṓskō (to wound); a miscarriage (abortion), i.e. (by analogy) untimely birth:—born out of due time.
www.blueletterbible.org www.blueletterbible.org
Click to expand...
Your own citing includes a second definition..."an untimely birth".
Paul lamented not being with the apostles who learned of and experienced walking with the Lord.
He was "late to the post".
He used a metaphor.
 
JackrabbitSlim said:
I think it is important to note the "ek" here, as it means "out from." So, if "ek" means out from, titrosko means "to wound," it would seem that he is speaking of being wounded from birth. This, of course, had nothing to do with his conversion and/or spiritual walk. I would venture to say that it is in reference of how he was looked upon due to his "condition" as, often times for that time period, people born with birth defects were treated with mild neglect to outright horribly. This could be why Paul referred to himself as "least of all saints" cf. Eph. 5:8. Although, that could be a statement of humility, or, a statement of his post actions against God and His people.
Click to expand...
I would go with "a statement of his prior actions against God and the church".
 
Hopeful said:
Your own citing includes a second definition..."an untimely birth".
Paul lamented not being with the apostles who learned of and experienced walking with the Lord.
He was "late to the post".
He used a metaphor.
Click to expand...
That's not a second definition. That's a second usage. I see this error made over and over when people refer to Strong's.

What you haven't done is factor in the element of 'abortion' into what Paul was getting at. We know from his account that he had a violent transformation. A necessary violence of birth because of the shameful depth of resistance he had to Jesus and The Way. Your narrow untimely interpretation doesn't address this at all. At least the NIV addressed the violent, untimely abnormality of his birth.
 
wondering said:
It's not leading me anywhere.
I've read a few commentaries and it seems that no scholar knows for sure what it could mean.
If they don't know, and there is such dissention, my attitude is not to think anything of the verse...
I just let it go. Paul was bothered by something, that's all that matters.
There doesn't even seem to be consensus as to whether it's physical or spiritual, but I had always been told it was physical. (In bible studies).
Click to expand...
The general consensus is it was either persecutions that dogged him, or his bad eyesight.
 
WIP said:
I am not as sure as you are here. Maybe it's a little of both. Our inability to live a truly righteous life even when we desperately want to could easily become a major thorn for us.
Click to expand...
I agree.
Sin always becomes a thorn.
I think something Christians understand is that our sin always has unpleasant consequences for us and those around us.

Some atheists know this too.
It's called karma, or the boomerang effect.

Jesus was such a good psychologist!
 
Jethro Bodine said:
That's not a second definition. That's a second usage. I see this error made over and over when people refer to Strong's.
Click to expand...
OK, second usage.
Thanks.
Jethro Bodine said:
What you haven't done is factor in the element of 'abortion' into what Paul was getting at. We know from his account that he had a violent transformation. A necessary violence of birth because of the shameful depth of resistance he had to Jesus and The Way. Your narrow untimely interpretation doesn't address this at all. At least the NIV addressed the violent, untimely abnormality of his birth.
Click to expand...
Get a different bible.
That was all malarkey.
 
wondering said:
I doubt it was the persecutions.
Paul stated he was happy to suffer for Jesus
To "complete" , or add to, His sacrifice.

Never heard of the eyesight idea...
Click to expand...
I can't recall the details off hand. But he's making a round-a-bout reference to thorns in the eyes from Deuteronomy(?). And he makes a reference or two to his eyesight in his letters.
 
Hopeful said:
Get a different bible.
That was all malarkey.
Click to expand...
Okay, I'll go with the ones that don't address the 'abortion' aspect of his birth. :lol

(By the way, I don't have one specific Bible. I reference and learn from more than one. There is no one perfect translation and interpretation.)
 
wondering said:
I doubt it was the persecutions.
Paul stated he was happy to suffer for Jesus
To "complete" , or add to, His sacrifice.

Never heard of the eyesight idea...
Click to expand...
Probably based on Gal 4:15..."Where is then the blessedness ye spake of? for I bear you record, that, if it had been possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me."

We will never know what the thorn was, so all comment on it is speculation.
We do know that Christ in Paul was strong enough to overcome it.
Thanks be to God.
That leaves us with the ability to know that whatever we may be suffering from can also be overcome.
 
Jethro Bodine said:
Okay, I'll go with the ones that don't address the 'abortion' aspect of his birth. :lol

(By the way, I don't have one specific Bible. I reference and learn from more than one. There is no one perfect translation and interpretation.)
Click to expand...
You are taking his metaphor literally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top